Merlyn_LeRoy

BS-87 writes: Come on Merlyn, is it really such an emotionally charged argument that you have to disingenuously misinterpret what everyone's being perfectly clear on and then go on a tantrum/rampage? "Perfectly clear"? When Eagledad asked for marriage as "anything other than a man and wife," polygyny qualifies as "other". When Beavah lies and states that "By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage" he is dishonestly ignoring all the articles and lawsuits that cite over a thousand federal benefits that marriage confers that civil unions don't, because civil unions aren't marriage. I'm certainly not being disingenuous. Words mean things.

Beavah, you continue to dishonestly state that the only issue is the term "marriage." You keep ignoring all the actual differences between civil unions and marriage to try and keep your lie afloat, and then you "reckon" you won because you keep dishonestly ignoring whenever I or anyone else points out that you're lying. Go ahead and try to implement your pipe dream of somehow only allowing religions to use the term "marriage", which isn't even constitutional, let alone practical. But it's pointless to discuss anything with someone as dishonest as yourself.

Beavah lies: Yah, Merlyn, so when I write "By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under STATE law" I'm lying because they don't have the same rights under federal law? You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

Beavah babbles: Nah, you're too thick to realize that da change in state law from civil unions to "marriage" that were insisted upon didn't affect federal law at all, eh? Beavah, stop being dishonest. I'm referring to these false statements of yours: "By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage." You continue to ignore the fact that state civil union laws don't confer federal marriage privileges. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false. Stop lying.

Beavah writes: Folks wanted the "m" word. No, they wanted genuine equality. Your head has yet to absorb the fact that none of these civil unions are federally recognized as marriage. It is not equal. It's extremely clear that it isn't that gays want the "m" word but that you, very much, want to deny them the "m" word.

Good luck with creating spousal testimonial privilege with a standard contract. Yep, Merlyn, good point. I did say that some rights would require government to change the laws, and this would be one. By allowing any two people to create privileged communication by signing a contract? I foresee a lot of crminals using that.

Oak Tree writes: I'm sure there could be a fairly standard contract that two parties could sign that would convey all the rights of marriage. Good luck with creating spousal testimonial privilege with a standard contract.

Beavah writes, answering packsaddle: "So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions..." Which places are these? Name them please. Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, ... Can't file federal joint tax returns One example is sufficient, but there are about 1,000 more federal benefits that apply to married couples that largely don't apply to these civil union couples.

skeptic babbles: We all know exactly what he was asking; still is male and female, not same gender, whether one or many What? He certainly neglected to ASK it that way: "I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife?" "Wife" is singular. And by the way, a number of countries have legalized same-sex marriage since 2001. And yes, that's marriage and not just civil unions or something other than marriage. Since you are atheist anyway, why would you not want a specific separation of civil and religious marriage? Well, since you're making an invalid assumption with your question, I can't answer it. I've been arguing that religion doesn't own the term "marriage" so there's no reason for civil marriages to start using a different term and somehow only allow religions to use the term "marriage." If some religions want to use a different term, try "holy matrimony;" civil marriage in the US wouldn't use that term, feel free to use it.

Well Barry, if you really want to act as if you're a total moron, Saudi Arabia recognizes polygyny. Polygyny, since I'll assume you are still acting as a total moron, is a husband and one or more wives. And, since I'll still assume you're still acting as a total moron, a husband and one or more wives is "other than a man and wife," which is exactly what you asked for. And I can easily name more countries, now and in the past.

Eagledad writes: I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife? Are you serious? Roughly half of all cultures have had recognized polygyny, and the bible refers to concubinage, for a start.

BS-87 writes: Merlyn, there's definitely a way to separate a legal contract between two people and a spiritual institution. Exactly. And religion does not own the term "marriage," so there's no reason to change the name of what is already a civil contract. Let's just put it this way, the state should recognize all contracts made by consenting parties of the age of majority. Religions should recognize what they want to recognize. I agree. That's why there's no reason for the existing civil contract called a "marriage" to change its name.

Beavah writes: By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage. No, they want the CIVIL title of marriage. Like I said earlier, marriage predates your religions; they DON'T OWN THE TERM.

Packsaddle, I'm way ahead of you. Why stop at the county level? Or city level? Just keep going until you're down to 2 people, and let them decide if marriage is legal for them. That's about as small a government as you can get.

SeattlePioneer writes: These days, man creates God in his own image. Same as the old days.

Are the header "SM" standing for something other then ScoutMaster? Cause I don't know what the subject has to do with ScoutMasters??? In this case, maybe sadomasochism?

Beavah writes: Here I agree with BS-87. Marriage recognized by the government is at its heart a government endorsement/appropriation/subsidy of a Judeo/Christian religious practice. Sorry, marriage predates recorded history; it's older than both Judaism and Christianity, so it's ridiculous to describe it as belonging to either in any sense. That's like saying eating is a Judeo/Christian practice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obamas-gay-marriage-stance-revealed-in-conversational-way/2012/05/09/gIQAPej8DU_story.html

John-in-KC writes: There's a reason the Fortune 50 corporation I work for pulled the corporate HQ, and 10,000 employees, out of the Peeple's Republik of Kaliforrny! Because they were in favor of discrimination against gays and atheists?

No, it means they're against invidious discrimination.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/09/4477008/boy-scouts-policy-on-gays-atheists.html ... The slap at the Boy Scouts came on the same day that the Senate's Judiciary Committee passed a bill banning minors from participating in controversial therapy programs to change their sexual orientations, and requiring adults to sign consent forms indicating they understand potential dangers. Friction over the Boy Scouts was sparked by a proposed commendation, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 94, to applaud the group for its commitment to train youths in responsible citizenship, character development, leadership and public service. "I'm sure that each of you has been personally affected by this organization," said Assemblyman Mike Morrell, a Rancho Cucamonga Republican who crafted the measure in honor of the Boy Scouts' 102nd anniversary. Morrell said that he "didn't want to politicize this" by amending his proposal, as sought by Feuer, to blast the membership policy. Feuer quickly turned thumbs down on ACR 94, saying that legislators should consider all aspects of an organization before touting it. By comparison, if the Boy Scouts had decided to exclude African Americans, rather than homosexuals, lawmakers would not likely be crafting resolutions of support, Feuer said. "I don't see the difference between discrimination based on race and on sexual orientation," Feuer added. In a party-line vote, Democrats killed Morrell's resolution, then passed an alternative by Feuer that commended the Boy Scouts but urged it not to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religious belief. Numerous other youth groups welcome members of all stripes, including Girl Scouts, Camp Fire USA, and Boys and Girls Clubs of America, according to Feuer's resolution. Feuer's measure, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 128, now heads to the Assembly floor. ...

It's VERY presumptuous to give lectures about oppression and discrimination to LDS church members. No, it isn't. Being oppressed doesn't confer some kind of "get out of criticism free" card.

Lisabob writes: "I get it. Believe me I do. Homosexuals would like to go through life appreciated for who they are and what they do. I understand. So do thieves, liars, and murderers too. Everyone wants to be accepted." Your comparison is odious. You can't seriously feel that it is apt. Yeah! At least thieves, liars, and murderers can still be scouts: http://www.scouter.com/forums//viewThread.asp?threadID=74652

That's the thing though isn't it. I don't know about things in England, but over here in the states we don't go around promoting groups as "inclusive". Sure we do: http://www.campfireusa.org/faqs.aspx "We are inclusive and open to every person in each community we serve." The BSA doesn't, of course, because they exclude people.

DLChris71 writes: I think that one of the comments at the bottom regarding scouting being inclusive vs. exclusive is more telling. I think that certain group think that being inclusive means that an organization should accept anyone and let them do anything they like. I think that a group that calls itself inclusive should actually live up to its claim, instead of turning around and excluding people. That's just committing fraud.